OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/23027/HTC_We_Will_Fully_Defend_Ourselves_
Exploring the Future of Computingen-usCopyright 2001-2015, David Adamsadam+nospam@osnews.comMon, 03 Aug 2015 01:07:29 GMThttp://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gifOSNews.comhttp://www.osnews.com
I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414116
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414116I would have liked to also see quotes from Apple stating that they too would like to defend themselves from those that steal their patents.

We know this site's personal feelings on Apple, patents and even more directly Apple's patents however, which means there was no chance of that ever making it into the article.

I know a great deal of the readers on this site don't like patents and think of any company that enforces them is the evil... but keep in mind that HTC will be using their patent portfolio as their defense. This means that any advocacy of one over the other in this case is simply fanboyism.

It's important to illustrate that just because you disagree with patents in general or even ownership of the specific patents in question doesn't in any way mean that they are invalid.

Any discussion moving forward should keep this in mind.Edited 2010-03-19 00:50 UTCFri, 19 Mar 2010 00:45:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (1other1)CommentsRE: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414124
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414124

I know a great deal of the readers on this site don't like patents and think of any company that enforces them is the evil... but keep in mind that HTC will be using their patent portfolio as their defense. This means that any advocacy of one over the other in this case is simply fanboyism.

The fact that Apple has some patents granted by the USPTO most emphatically does not mean that this is Apples technology. Most places do not have software patents, it is only the US where this madness has got out of hand.

So I passionately disagree with you here. It is a perfectly valid response for anyone accused of "stealing" the technology that they have laboriously implemented in their products to respond with a patent retaliation of their own. Just because of an insane out-of-control madness in the USPTO does not mean there is any "justice" on Apple's part here.

In fact, I would encourage HTC to join the OIN and the Patent Commons organistations, and call in legal help from the Linux Foundation and from Google, and hit Apple with an absolute boatload of counter-claims.

Joining the OIN worked for TomTom. Microsoft's campaign against TomTom was history within a few days after TomTom joined the OIN.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=3849Edited 2010-03-19 01:25 UTCFri, 19 Mar 2010 01:21:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (lemur2)CommentsRE: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414126
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414126However, they are still invalid if they are about things considered rudimentary or basic. They are also invalid if there's prior art, which is almost certainly the case for Apple's touchscreen patents.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:23:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (satsujinka)CommentsRE[2]: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414141
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414141

However, they are still invalid if they are about things considered rudimentary or basic. They are also invalid if there's prior art, which is almost certainly the case for Apple's touchscreen patents.

Didn't stop them approving those patents though. I think, personally, that the USPTO has the philosophy of "approve everything, and if there's a problem spend buttloads of cash in court to straighten it out." They're lazy, simple as that.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:37:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (darknexus)CommentsRE: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414148
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414148I'm aware that what I'm about to say could be taken as offensive so vote me down but frankly, the following line...

... but keep in mind that HTC will be using their patent portfolio as their defense. This means that any advocacy of one over the other in this case is simply fanboyism.

...has got to be some of the fuzziest logic I've heard in a long time. Seriously, using patents to defend one's self in a patent lawsuit is not only completely understandable, even to people for whom software patents make no sense, but is desirable. I would like to see companies compete on the strength of their product portfolio. If one company starts using patents as a means of undermining this competition then hit them with all the patents you have because frankly they deserve to get a good kick in the fork.

HTC did not instigate this squabble even though Apple are the newcomer on the smart-phone scene. HTC where perfectly happy to compete on the basis of merit, something companies in the rest of the world have to do without the recourse of running to a court of law once their market share is being threatened.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:49:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (SReilly)CommentsRE: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414150
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414150

*snip*

I know a great deal of the readers on this site don't like patents and think of any company that enforces them is the evil... but keep in mind that HTC will be using their patent portfolio as their defense. This means that any advocacy of one over the other in this case is simply fanboyism.

*snip*

You don't need them as defense if no one can use them to attack you. It's that simple. I'm not entirely against patents themselves, I'm just against patenting crap and then using that crap to put competitors out of bussiness. It's very sad that, even if you don't plan to use them as a weapon, you still have to patent the hell out of your products just in case any douche feels your product is too dangerous / competitive.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:40:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (merkoth)CommentsRE: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414153
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414153Apple the company who's founding members glorify steeling the ideas of other (because it was cool in the 70s), but on the flimsiest excuse, with the weakest software patents with obvious prior art and when ever they feel that their overpriced products are threatened rush to court.

Apple's behaviour is contemptible.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:22:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Gone fishing)CommentsWell Well Patent infringement! Hmmhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414161
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414161If i say that my friend had and Imate Jasjar way back then I would think that mobile touch based computing was quite an area HTC was already using. Gesture patent is bullshit. Anyone with a software would be able to write a program infact there were programs on windows that actually could do actions via gestures. GSM well much is nokia, and wait a second if touch was already a being used and then they call gesture things as patent then I want to know a few things from Steve:

1) I want to hang a .32 holstered to my boxers. I hope that is not patented (if i carry my HTC along with it) who knows maybe you have patented wearing boxers with an iphone or wearing a holstered .32 with boxers and a mobile device is patented. (god bless America, i think this can be done).

2) I want to use the phone from HTC with my left hand while i sip coffee holding the cup in my right hand is that patented with an Iphone.

Lots more but I will be flamed to kingdom comeEdited 2010-03-19 07:09 UTCFri, 19 Mar 2010 07:07:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (ritesh_nair)CommentsRE: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414167
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414167Are you an Apple employe?Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:59:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Fransexy)CommentsRE: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414170
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414170A: This is an opinion forum and not a legal discussion. So disagreeing with US patent system and particular patents is an absolutely valid topic, even keeping in mind that there are a lot of perfectly valid patents.

B: This is a followup article. The statement that Apple will defend it's IP was in the original article, if you like to see it nothing is standing in your way of opening that article and reading it again.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:10:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (JAlexoid)CommentsRE[3]: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414171
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414171

Didn't stop them approving those patents though. I think, personally, that the USPTO has the philosophy of "approve everything, and if there's a problem spend buttloads of cash in court to straighten it out." They're lazy, simple as that.

I believe that is how they are financed. If they don't approve, they don't get the income.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:15:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (JAlexoid)CommentsThe problem one hashttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414172
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414172Maybe the problem people have with this is the way Apple behaves?

The problem is not that Apple has patents. All companies do. The problem is not that Apple wants to protect and profit from them. All companies do.

The problem comes when Apple wants to use its patents and its legal department to lock in and exploit and control.

For example, the DRM in iTunes. Of course they were entitled to do the R&D, and to get returns from it. But that is not what they wanted. What they wanted was to refuse to license, so as stop any other vendors playing the iTunes DRM'd tracks on their players, so as to get a lock on player, store and purchase and management software.

If Apple were a company that was not so fixated on producing an exclusive walled garden in which you're tied to Apple solutions to the maximum extent possible, people would not react so badly to it. But this is how they are, its the old saga of proprietary connectors, locking the software to hardware....etc

This is what people object to. Not the fact that they want a fair return on their R&D, the fact that they want to make this return by monopolizing any market they are in to the max they can manage. It is actually worse than Microsoft, because its about all three of hardware, content and applications.

Yes, I know, don't bother saying it. If you do not like it do not buy it. I don't.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:38:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (alcibiades)CommentsRE: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414173
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414173

I would have liked to also see quotes from Apple stating that they too would like to defend themselves from those that steal their patents.

We know this site's personal feelings on Apple, patents and even more directly Apple's patents however, which means there was no chance of that ever making it into the article.

I know a great deal of the readers on this site don't like patents and think of any company that enforces them is the evil... but keep in mind that HTC will be using their patent portfolio as their defense. This means that any advocacy of one over the other in this case is simply fanboyism.

It's important to illustrate that just because you disagree with patents in general or even ownership of the specific patents in question doesn't in any way mean that they are invalid.

Any discussion moving forward should keep this in mind. .

You're forgetting one thing - Thom has already reported on Apple's point of view in a previous article.

While it would have been helpful for him to hyperlink to that article, repeating what has already been reported would have been pointless.

furthermore, some of your comments (particularly the part where you openly accused Thom of anti-Apple fanboyism) is just going to provoke arguments instead of a balanced mature discussion like you said you wanted.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:44:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Laurence)CommentsRE[2]: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414174
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414174Don't bother - he is a known troll on OSNews who, by now, has about 15 accounts on OSNews. At one point, he used like 8 of them simultaneously to mod down anti-Apple comments, and promote pro-Apple ones.

He's the only case of astroturfing we've ever had. We had people consistently modding down one other specific user, but never something like this. It'sad, since we have enough Apple fans on this board to defend Apple without him running around like an idiot.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:53:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda)CommentsRE[3]: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414175
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414175Lol! Wow, I had no idea, thanks for pointing that out. Any hope in banning him/her/it?Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:00:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (SReilly)CommentsRE[4]: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414176
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414176Oh already taken care of.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:03:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda)CommentsRE[3]: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414177
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414177

Don't bother - he is a known troll on OSNews who, by now, has about 15 accounts on OSNews. At one point, he used like 8 of them simultaneously to mod down anti-Apple comments, and promote pro-Apple ones.

He's the only case of astroturfing we've ever had. We had people consistently modding down one other specific user, but never something like this. It'sad, since we have enough Apple fans on this board to defend Apple without him running around like an idiot.

Thanks for the heads up.

I was chuckling to myself when reading his comments as I recall you mentioning that you own an iPhone.

In fact -and going further off topic- it's quite amusing (though no doubt frustrating for you) how one week you'll be accused of being an Apple hater then the next you week you'll be branded a Microsoft hater. Heck, I've even read a post or two from people complaining that you must hate open source as you don't elevate every distro update to the front page!

I've often toyed with the idea of starting up a similar new site come blog (as I'm an opinionated b*****d) but I just don't think I could handle the additional commitment (drain on time et al) and the abuse that follows. So thank God someone else does.Edited 2010-03-19 10:10 UTCFri, 19 Mar 2010 10:08:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Laurence)CommentsTear em a new one!http://www.osnews.com/thread?414182
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414182I hope HTC tear apple a new one, God knows they deserve everything they get - nuff said.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:39:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (RawMustard)CommentsRE: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414186
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414186We know this site's personal feelings on Apple

It just shows a majority of readers on this site live by a higher code of ethics and morals than the low life corporation you're talking about, so what?
where do you stand in this regard?Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:42:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (RawMustard)CommentsThe only winners...http://www.osnews.com/thread?414189
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414189The only winners will be the lawyers. Years of litigation will buy many homes, cars, boats and kids educations. We will all pay for it in higher prices of products.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:11:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (bolomkxxviii)CommentsOK, supose Apple winshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414192
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414192So what? You guys in USA will not have Android (as we know it) anymore and will basically have only WIndows Mobile, Apple and Nokia as options.

The rest of the world will have more dispute in technology and will advance faster....

OH WAIT! Sudenly I want that Apple wins!

Seriously, this software patents in USA is absurd considering the type of stuff they approve to be patentable, you are placing the rope around your neck, and the world will just move on without you guys.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:38:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (protomank)CommentsRE: OK, supose Apple winshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414196
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414196

So what? You guys in USA will not have Android (as we know it) anymore and will basically have only WIndows Mobile, Apple and Nokia as options.

... if Android would fail in the US market (which won't happen) because Apple sue to death all phone makers using it, nobody else would have it. Not even you.. wherever you are.Edited 2010-03-19 13:30 UTCFri, 19 Mar 2010 13:26:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Ikshaar)CommentsRE[2]: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414197
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414197Well HTC are already a member of RPX so it would not make much sense to join an other group at this point.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:26:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (ariarinen)CommentsRE[2]: OK, supose Apple winshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414208
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414208Lol! I'm sorry, what? The European market is far larger than the US, not to mention south-east Asia. It'd be a shame for HTC to have to stop producing phones for the US but the US is far from being the world, mate.

... if Android would fail in the US market (which won't happen) because Apple sue to death all phone makers using it, nobody else would have it. Not even you.. wherever you are.

A more likely outcome is that a limited choice of hyper-expensive proprietary software would have the US market, and the sane rest of the world uses open source. FOSS would become virtually illegal in the US, and the only viable option everywhere else.

Costs of doing business in the US would become sky high because of incessant legal squabbling, and actually come down everywhere else. The US will withdraw within itself, its products would be laughably expensive everywhere else, and therefore ignored, so the US would choke under hyper-inflation, its currency would become useless everywhere else, and the US would be unable to afford food from anywhere else.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:28:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (lemur2)CommentsRE[3]: OK, supose Apple winshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414387
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414387

"... if Android would fail in the US market (which won't happen) because Apple sue to death all phone makers using it, nobody else would have it. Not even you.. wherever you are.

A more likely outcome is that a limited choice of hyper-expensive proprietary software would have the US market, and the sane rest of the world uses open source. FOSS would become virtually illegal in the US, and the only viable option everywhere else.

Costs of doing business in the US would become sky high because of incessant legal squabbling, and actually come down everywhere else. The US will withdraw within itself, its products would be laughably expensive everywhere else, and therefore ignored, so the US would choke under hyper-inflation, its currency would become useless everywhere else, and the US would be unable to afford food from anywhere else. "

FYI, US exports, not imports food. You couldn't even look that one up on Wiki? All that will really happen in this deluded fantasy is Americans won't be able to purchase lead filled toys from China lol.Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:49:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (ssa2204)CommentsRE[4]: I would have liked to also seehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414456
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414456

I believe that is how they are financed. If they don't approve, they don't get the income.

Well they get paid even if they don't approve the patent application, but they receive much more if they approve from yearly fees.

FYI, US exports, not imports food. You couldn't even look that one up on Wiki? All that will really happen in this deluded fantasy is Americans won't be able to purchase lead filled toys from China lol.

If the US continues with behavior about its alleged "IP" similar to the behaviour that Monsanto is infamous for, as Obama has promised it will do, then US won't export food for long.

US products are already very much "on the nose" internationally. I am aware of some major contracts for aircraft, for example, that have entirely been awarded on the criteria "as long as it doesn't contain an US-made parts".

As the US begins to insist more and more on being paid license fees, especially for obvious ideas such as Apple are pushing against HTC right now, than more and more no one (i) internationally will touch US-made products with a ten-foot barge pole.
"Not made in the US" will become a major selling point.Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:43:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (lemur2)CommentsRE[5]: OK, supose Apple winshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414526
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414526What color is the sky in your world?Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:29:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (ssa2204)CommentsRE[5]: OK, supose Apple winshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414536
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414536

US products are already very much "on the nose" internationally. I am aware of some major contracts for aircraft, for example, that have entirely been awarded on the criteria "as long as it doesn't contain an US-made parts".

Well regarding aircrafts its a completely different reason why they don't want US made parts and that's Weapons export licences (fighter and other military hardware and spear-parts). And that criteria limits their choice to Russian and Chinese and France aircrafts.Sun, 21 Mar 2010 08:05:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (ariarinen)CommentsRE[6]: OK, supose Apple winshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414578
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414578

" US products are already very much "on the nose" internationally. I am aware of some major contracts for aircraft, for example, that have entirely been awarded on the criteria "as long as it doesn't contain an US-made parts".

Well regarding aircrafts its a completely different reason why they don't want US made parts and that's Weapons export licences (fighter and other military hardware and spear-parts). And that criteria limits their choice to Russian and Chinese and France aircrafts. "

My example was for an aircraft design which was in fact of European origin. The non-European customers got to assemble most of the fleet in their own country. They chose it because the Americans are unbelieveably precious about their alleged IP, and that attitude flies in the face of the sovreignity of other nations.

As the Americans steadily become more and more precious about alleged IP, this type of thing will happen more and more often.Edited 2010-03-21 22:57 UTCSun, 21 Mar 2010 22:53:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (lemur2)CommentsRE[7]: OK, supose Apple winshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414634
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414634

My example was for an aircraft design which was in fact of European origin. The non-European customers got to assemble most of the fleet in their own country. They chose it because the Americans are unbelieveably precious about their alleged IP, and that attitude flies in the face of the sovreignity of other nations.

As the Americans steadily become more and more precious about alleged IP, this type of thing will happen more and more often.

Could it be Saab 37 Viggen? And there are plenty of license built American planes in Europa like the F-16 for the original NATO partners where assembled in the Netherlands, most of Finlands F-18 are assembled in Finland to name a few examples.

Now days the customer are pretty strong, do to harder competition on the market and they demand more tech transfers and that majority of the fleet is assembled locally.Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:23:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (ariarinen)CommentsRE[8]: OK, supose Apple winshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414647
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414647

"
My example was for an aircraft design which was in fact of European origin. The non-European customers got to assemble most of the fleet in their own country. They chose it because the Americans are unbelieveably precious about their alleged IP, and that attitude flies in the face of the sovreignity of other nations.

As the Americans steadily become more and more precious about alleged IP, this type of thing will happen more and more often.

Could it be Saab 37 Viggen? And there are plenty of license built American planes in Europa like the F-16 for the original NATO partners where assembled in the Netherlands, most of Finlands F-18 are assembled in Finland to name a few examples.

Now days the customer are pretty strong, do to harder competition on the market and they demand more tech transfers and that majority of the fleet is assembled locally. "

I'm not going to say, other than that the aircraft design was distinctly European, with no US-made components (especially software). The OEM had to go to an alternate source for a couple of replacement parts (such as the GPS I believe) in order to meet the customer's no-US-components requirement.Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:01:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (lemur2)CommentsRE[9]: OK, supose Apple winshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414729
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414729

I'm not going to say, other than that the aircraft design was distinctly European, with no US-made components (especially software). The OEM had to go to an alternate source for a couple of replacement parts (such as the GPS I believe) in order to meet the customer's no-US-components requirement.

In other words your blowing smoke out your ass as usual, no surprise there. I get the feeling that in this case what you are thinking about has nothing to do with "patents" in the first place, but I guess never let facts get in the way of your ideology right?Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:45:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (ssa2204)CommentsMac user for 15+ years and... http://www.osnews.com/thread?414749
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414749I hope Apple gets the punch in the face they deserve!Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:06:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (milatchi)CommentsOK -- heads up to you guys.http://www.osnews.com/thread?414777
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414777I am patenting the following:

1) Moving the mouse over the wors O S N E W S.
No one else is allowed to even touch their white or other coloured triangular headed spearlike mouse pointer on these letters.

2) I am patenting 'Patenting' and 'patent' words itself . If anyone wants to patent or is trying to use either words they have to PAY me.
I think the US patent office can allot me this patent as well.

" I'm not going to say, other than that the aircraft design was distinctly European, with no US-made components (especially software). The OEM had to go to an alternate source for a couple of replacement parts (such as the GPS I believe) in order to meet the customer's no-US-components requirement.

In other words your blowing smoke out your ass as usual, no surprise there. I get the feeling that in this case what you are thinking about has nothing to do with "patents" in the first place, but I guess never let facts get in the way of your ideology right? "

How did you arrive at that conclusion? What is so ublieveable about it? There are a number of capable nations who want no dealings with the US, or at least as few as possible. Some of them are capable enough to have their own nuclear devices.

This is an issue of sovreignity, more than a pure IP issue. Some nations hold no truck with the idea of the US "owning" any so-claimed "Intellectual Property". This applies particularly where the "Intellectual Property" in question is critical to a nation's independence. We are not talking about Hollywood movies here.Edited 2010-03-23 03:03 UTCTue, 23 Mar 2010 02:53:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (lemur2)CommentsRE[11]: OK, supose Apple winshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414848
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414848Well congrats on those fine examples, or lack thereof. You could not even point to one nation? How about Iran maybe? Venezuela? Well dat der is sum mighty powerful nations not wanting to do business with us.

I have an idea, since you love that damn Wikipedia so much, why not look up F-35 or JSF for an idea of just how poorly nobody wants to do business with the US. Afterwords, take your meds kid.Tue, 23 Mar 2010 07:23:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (ssa2204)CommentsRE[12]: OK, supose Apple winshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?414862
http://www.osnews.com/thread?414862

Well congrats on those fine examples, or lack thereof. You could not even point to one nation? How about Iran maybe? Venezuela? Well dat der is sum mighty powerful nations not wanting to do business with us.

I have an idea, since you love that damn Wikipedia so much, why not look up F-35 or JSF for an idea of just how poorly nobody wants to do business with the US. Afterwords, take your meds kid.

Neither Iran nor Venezuela appear in the list of possible nations that I indicated via a wikipedia article that also conveniently identified one of the significant technical capabilities of the nations. An indigenous technical capability ... not one "bought" from the US.

Here are some more hints of non-US Intellectual Property that some of the worlds larger sovereign nations are getting up to, all by themselves: